Docstoc

Performance Analysis of ANN on Dataset Allocations for Pattern

Document Sample
Performance Analysis of ANN on Dataset Allocations for Pattern Powered By Docstoc
					Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                                   www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012




   Performance Analysis of ANN on Dataset Allocations for Pattern
                 Recognition of Bivariate Process
                                         Olatunde .A. Adeoti1* Peter .A. Osanaiye2
                1.   Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Bowen University, Iwo, Osun state, Nigeria.
                           2. Department of Statistics, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
                     *Email of the corresponding author: tim_deot@yahoo.com


Abstract
Several approaches to identifying the out-of-control variables after the detection of abnormal pattern has been most
intensively studied and used in practice. One of the several approaches is the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) based
model for diagnosis of out-of-control signal of multivariate process mean shift. In spite of the number of years of
research in neural network, limited research (if any) have been done on the effect of dataset allocations in
percentages for training and testing on the performance of ANN. In this paper, we investigate the use of different
percentages of dataset allocation into training, validation and testing on the performance of ANN in pattern
recognition of bivariate process using six selected training algorithms. The result of study showed that large
allocation of dataset for training was found suitable, having higher recognition accuracy for ANN learning and
perform better for pattern recognition of bivariate process.

Keywords: Bivariate Process; Pattern Recognition; Recognition accuracy; Multivariate quality control charts, training
algorithm


1. Introduction

The control charts are powerful tools in SPC for the study and control of repetitive process as well as detecting an

out-of-control situation. Control chart is of univariate and multivariate type. Univariate chart is used to monitor

processes that manufacture products with a single quality characteristic. An obvious advantage of the chart is that the

interpretation of a signal is straight forward since the source of the problem arises from a shift in the mean or

variance of the quality variable being monitored. Multivariate chart on other hand is used to monitor processes that

manufacture products with two or more quality variables that are usually correlated. In monitoring the multivariate

process and determining if it is in control, several multivariate charts are used. They include Hotelling T 2 (Hotelling,

1947), MEWMA (Lowry et al., 1992; Pignatiello and Runger, 1990) and MCUSUM (Woodall and Ncube, 1985;

Healy, 1987; Crosier, 1988). A recent review of multivariate statistical process control was given by Bersimis et al.

(2007). Though the multivariate charts can monitor multivariate process, the problem of these charts is the

                                                              53
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                             www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



difficulties in detecting which variable or set of variables that is responsible for the signal when the process is out of

control. Both analytical and graphical methods have been proposed to overcome this problem with associated

deficiency. (See Alt, 1985; Jackson, 1985; Murphy, 1987; Doganaksoy et al., 1991; Mason et al., 1995, 1997; Fuchs

and Benjamini, 1994)

Advanced computing technologies and data-collection systems has motivated many researchers to explore the use of

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) based model (Rumelhart et al. 1986; Anagun, 1998; Chen and Wang, 2004; Guh

and Hsieh, 1999). However, one of the most important problems that neural network designers face is an appropriate

network size as well as appropriate percentages of dataset allocation into training, validation and testing for a given

application. Network size involved the case of layered neural network architectures, the number of layers in a

network, the number of nodes per layer and the number of connections. Haykin (1999) stated that while it is possible

to design an artificial neural network with no hidden layer, they can only classify data that is linearly separable which

severely limits their applications. Medsker and Liebowitz (1994) opined that ANN that contains hidden layers have

the ability to deal robustly with nonlinear and complex problems and thus can operate on more interesting problems.

On the percentages of dataset allocation for training ANN, different percentages of dataset allocation have been

suggested in the literature but there are no mathematical rules for the determination of the required sizes of the

various subsets. Looney (1996)       recommends 65% of the dataset to be used for training, 25% for testing and 10%

for validation (cited in Basheer and Hajmeer, 2000), whereas Demuth et al., (1998)        proposed 60% for training, 20%

for validation and 20% for testing same as Niaki and Abbasi (2005). In this study, we examined the performance of

ANN on different percentages of dataset allocation into training, validation and testing levels using six different

training algorithms.

The paper is divided into five sections. Section 2 consists of fundamentals of neural network including network

configuration, dataset allocation and training algorithms. Section 3 is the experimental procedure. Section 4 is the

discussion of the results and section 5 gives the conclusion.




    2      Fundamentals of Artificial Neural Network (ANN)


                                                           54
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                              www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are computational modeling tools that have recently emerged and found extensive

acceptance in many disciplines for modeling complex real world problems. ANN is an adaptive, most often

nonlinear system which consists of a set of computational units called neurons or nodes and a set of weighted

directed connections between these nodes. Adaptive means that the network learns by examples as the parameters are

changed during operation which is normally called training phase.          Schalkoff (1997) define neural network as

structures comprised of densely interconnected adaptive simple processing elements (called artificial neurons or

nodes) that are capable of performing massively parallel computations for data processing and knowledge

representation. ANN has the ability to learn complex nonlinear input/output relationships, use sequential training

procedure, adapt themselves to the data and generalize knowledge.

The Artificial Neural Network is built with a systematic step-by-step procedure to optimize a performance criterion

or to follow some implicit internal constraint, which is commonly referred to as the learning rule.           In artificial

neural network, the designer chooses the network topology; the performance function, the learning rule and the

criterion to stop the training phase but the system automatically adjust the parameters.

The increasing popularity of neural network models to solve complex real world problems has been primarily due to

the availability of efficient learning algorithms for practitioners to use. ANN had been utilized in variety of field such

as manufacturing process, financial, medical, telecommunications e.t.c.


2.1 ANN configuration

The most commonly used family of ANN for pattern recognition is the multilayer perceptron (MLP) network

(Rumelhart et al., 1986; Sagrigolu et al, 2000). It consists of three layers: input, hidden and output layers. The input

layer with nodes representing input variables to the problem, an output layer with nodes representing the dependent

variables, that is, what is being modeled, and one or more hidden layers containing nodes to help capture the

nonlinearity in the data. The primary function of the input layer is to distribute the input information to the next

processing layer and the task of the output layer is to determine the pattern (Guh and Hsieh, 1999). The ANN model

is trained and tested before it can be deployed for pattern recognition. Supervised training approach is adopted. Here,

sets of data comprising input and target vectors are presented to the MLP network. The learning process takes place

through adjustment of weight connections between the input and the hidden layer and between the hidden and output



                                                           55
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                            www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



layer to minimize error between the actual and desired output . The input node size is equal to the number of

variables, i.e 2. The number of output nodes in the study is set corresponding to the number of pattern classes, i.e. 3.

The number of nodes in the hidden layer is selected by varying the number of nodes between 10 and 20. The transfer

functions used are hyperbolic tangent function for the hidden layer that transforms the layer input to output range

from -1 to +1 and is defined as

                                           ���� ���� −���� −����
                              ����(����) =                                                  (1)
                                           ���� ���� +���� −����
and sigmoid function for the output layer that transforms the layer input to output range from 0.0 to 1.0 and is

                                                1
defined as                     ����(����) =                                               (2)
                                            1+���� −����

2.2 Training Algorithms

Various types of training algorithms for which the multilayer perceptron (MLP) network learn exist but it is very

difficult to know which training algorithm will be suitable for training ANN model for pattern recognition of

bivariate manufacturing process. This depends on many factors including the number of weights and biases, error

goal and number of training iterations (epochs). Backpropagation algorithm, the common and most widely used

algorithm in training artificial neural network learns by calculating an error between desired and actual output and

propagate the error information back to each node in the network. This propagated error is used to drive the learning

at each node. There are many variations of the backpropagation algorithm. In this study, six training algorithms are

evaluated for the different dataset allocations into training, validation and testing. They are: gradient descent

algorithm, gradient descent with momentum, Levenberg-Marquardt, scaled conjugate, resilient backpropagation and

quasi-Newton.

The Levenberg-Marquardt (trainlm) algorithm blends the steepest descent method and the Gauss-Newton algorithm

as it inherits the speed of the Gauss-Newton and stability of the steepest descent method. It provides a numerical

solution to the problem of minimizing a function, generally nonlinear, over a space of parameters of the function. It

is fast and has stable convergence and it is able to obtain lower mean square error than any other algorithms. The

scaled conjugate gradient algorithm (trainscg) was designed to avoid the time-consuming line search of the

conjugate gradient algorithms which is computationally expensive, because it requires that the network response to

all training inputs be computed several times for each search. The trainscg is fast as trainlm and able to obtain lower

                                                           56
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                              www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



mean square. Quasi-Newton (trainbfg) is a class of algorithms that is based on Newton’s method which doesn’t

require calculation of Hessian matrix of second derivatives but consider an approximation of the Hessian matrix

specified by gradient descent that is suitably updated at each iteration of the algorithm. The weights and biases of

gradient descent (traingd) are updated in the direction of the negative gradient of the performance function and only

after the entire training set have been applied to the network. The gradient descent with momentum (traingdm)

allows a network to respond not only to the local gradient, but also to recent trends in the error surface. The gradient

descent is usually slower in convergence. The resilient backpropagation (trainrp) is a first order optimization

technique for minimizing the error function. The purpose of the resilient backpropagation (Rprop) training algorithm

is to eliminate the harmful effects of small magnitudes of the partial derivatives when steepest descent is used to train

a multilayer network with sigmoid functions since sigmoid functions are characterized by the fact that their slopes

must approach zero as the input gets large. The memory requirement for Rprop is relatively small compared to other

algorithms. The ANN model is trained with these algorithms and the experiment is coded in MATLAB using its

ANN toolbox (Demuth et al 2010)


3. Experimental       procedure
ANN model was developed using raw dataset as the input vector. This section discusses the neural network design,
procedure for data generation and allocation of dataset into training, validation and testing of the model



3.1 Dataset generation and Allocation

Ideally, the best way to obtain dataset for training and testing of ANN model is to collect various data from

real-world manufacturing process environment. Since the real data in the production process are not economically

available and difficult to obtain, simulation is an effective and useful alternative generating process data. This

study simulates the data from bivariate normal distribution when the variables are correlated. Let ����~����2 (����, Σ)

                                                                                                1     ����
denote the bivariate normal distribution with mean ���� and variance-covariance matrix        Σ=[          ]   where σi,i =1,
                                                                                               ����     1

for all i and σi,j =���� for all ���� ≠ ���� and   ���� is the correlation value between the two variables in each pattern. The

in-control mean is assumed to be a zero vector. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be scaled so as to have

unit variance for all components. The dataset had 150 examples from each class (i.e. 450 examples). After the data

generation step, an important step is the allocation of the dataset into training, validation and testing data. The

                                                            57
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                             www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



training dataset is used for computing gradient and updating the weight connections among the layers. Validation set

is used to monitor training process to avoid overfitting and bias while the testing set is used for preliminary

performance test of generalization to data not yet seen. Chen and Wang (2004) randomly allocated the dataset of

seventy-five input vectors for nine distinct types of shift which was generated by monte-carlo method into training

and testing in the ratio of 70:30. Niaki and Abbasi (2005) proposed a neural network for fault diagnosis of bivariate

process and use large dataset of five hundred for each pattern cases. Demuth et al. (2010) proposed the allocation of

dataset into 60% (training), 20% (validation) and 20% (testing) which was adopted by Kiran et al (2010) before they

were presented to the ANN for the learning process. In this study, the allocation of dataset were randomly allocated

into 50% (training), 25% (validation) and 25% (testing); 60% (training), 20% (validation) and 20% (testing); 70%

(training), 15% (validation) and 15% (testing) and 80% (training), 10% (validation) and 10% (testing) for the ANN

learning process.


3.2 Neural Network training
The dataset were randomly allocated using the different percentages of dataset allocation of the study to avoid

possible bias in the presentation order. The network was trained using the different dataset allocation into training (in

percentages) for updating the network weights and the validation set for in-training validation. Six training

algorithms were employed in the training of the model for the different dataset allocations.    The number of nodes in

the hidden layer was varied between 10 and 20. The training process was stopped whenever the maximum number of

validation failures was exceeded or the maximum allowable number of epochs was reached or the error goal was
                                                                                                                       −
achieved. The maximum allowable number of epoch was 5000 and the performance error goal was set at 1                       .

MATLAB M-files were developed for the training and diagnosis performance of the network using the MATLAB

Neural network toolbox software. The trained ANN model was evaluated to obtain the recognition accuracy once the

training stopped. The mean square error for the dataset allocation were observed and the dataset allocation           that

gives the minimum mean square error and maximum recognition accuracy for           the ANN model was considered the

best for pattern recognition of bivariate process.


  4    Results and Discussion




                                                           58
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                             www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



The result in Table 1 and figure 2       show that the recognition accuracy of the pattern recognition neural network

improves marginally as percentages of dataset allocated into training set also increases for Levenberg-Marquardt

algorithm, Quasi-Newton and Resilient backpropagation but deteriorates for other algorithms. For three of the

dataset allocations where the training subset is smaller than 80%, the performance of the ANN is mostly affected by

the Quasi-Newton and the remaining allocation affected by Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. This demonstrates that

when more of the dataset is allocated for training, the recognition performance of the neural network model also

improves. A MATLAB output of the training of one of the ANN model is shown in Figure 1. The best recognition

accuracy (the highest value) occurred when dataset are allocated into 70% (Training), 15% (Validation) and trained

with Quasi-Newton algorithm and when dataset are allocated into 80% (Training), 10% (Validation) and trained with

Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, while its generalization performance is only being assessed based on the remaining

percentages of the testing subset. Therefore, it is recommended that larger percentages of the dataset be allocated for

the training of neural network for optimal performance of the pattern recognition neural network of bivariate process

control.

Similarly, the network trained with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm gives the lowest mean square error when

compared to other algorithms for the different percentages of dataset allocations in table 2

The effect of random allocation of dataset into training, validation and testing cannot be neglected in the optimal

performance of the bivariate neural network. Overall, the performance of ANN improves when larger percentages of

the dataset are allocated for training (learning) of the sample data and trained with Quasi-Newton or

Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. However, Levenberg-Marquardt seems to be better because of smaller mean square

error performance.
.
5. Conclusion
This paper examine the effect of different percentages of dataset allocation into training, validation and testing on the

artificial neural network with the aim of obtaining a suitable dataset allocation in percentages for training, validating

and testing of ANN model. The MLP neural network was utilized because studies show that it has better

performance for pattern recognition. Four different groupings of dataset allocation namely: 50% (Training), 25%

(Validation) and 25% (Testing); 60% (Training), 20% (Validation) and 20% (Testing); 70% (Training), 15%

(Validation) and 15% (Testing); 80% (Training), 10% (Validation) and 10% (Testing)             were evaluated with six

                                                           59
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                            www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



training algorithms and the dataset allocation into 80% (Training), 10% (Validation) and 10% (Testing) trained with

Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm is identified to be the best allocation for the problem because it has good

recognition accuracy and minimum mean square error compared to other dataset allocation.
References
Alt, F.B. (1985) “Multivariate quality control”, The Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences   Kotz     S, Johnson NL,
Read CR (eds). Wiley: New York, 110-122
Anagun, A.S. (1998) “A neural network applied to pattern Recognition in Statistical Process Control”. Computers
and Industrial Engineering 35, 110-122
Basheer, I. A and Hajmeer, M (2000) “Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application”.
Journal of Microbiological Methods 43, 3–31
Bersimis, S., Psarakis, S. and Panaretos, J. (2007) “Multivariate Statistical Process Control Charts: An overview”.
Quality and Reliability Engineering International 23, 517-543
Chen, L.H. and Wang, T.Y (2004). “Artificial Neural Networks to classify mean shifts from multivariate ���� 2       chart
signals”. Computers and Industrial Engineering 47, 195-205.
Crosier, R.B. (1988) “Multivariate generalizations of cumulative sum quality-control schemes”, Technometrics 30,
291-303
Demuth H, Beale M and Hagan A (2010)           Neural Network Toolbox User’s Guide.     Math Works, Natick
Doganaksoy, N., Faltin, F.W., and Tucker,W.T. (1991) “Identification of out-of-control multivariate characteristic in a
multivariable manufacturing environment” Communication in Statistics: Theory and Methods 20,2775–2790
Fuchs, C. and Benjamini, Y. (1994) “Multivariate profile charts for statistical process control”     Technometrics 36,
182-195
Guh, R.S. and Hsieh, Y.C. (1999). “A Neural Network Based Model for Abnormal Pattern Recognition of Control
Charts”, Computers and Industrial Engineering 36, 97-108
Haykin, S (1999).     Neural Networks: A comprehensive Foundation. Second edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Healy, J.D. (1987) “A note on multivariate CUSUM procedures”, Technometrics 29, 409- 412
Hotelling, H. (1947) “Multivariate Quality Control-Illustrated by the Air Testing of Sample        Bombsights,”
Techniques of Statistical Analysis (Eisenhart, C., Hastay, M. W., and Wallis, W. A. eds.), McGraw Hill, New York
Indra Kiran, N.V.N, Pramila Devi, M and Vijaya Lakshmi, G (2010) “Effective Control Chart Pattern Recognition
Using Artificial Neural Network”. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 10(3), 194-199
Lowry, C.A, Woodall W.H., Champ C.W. and Rigdon S.E. (1992) “A multivariate EWMA control chart”
Technometrics 34, 46-53
Mason, R. L., Tracy, N. D. and Young, John C. (1995) “Decomposition of T2 for Multivariate Control Chart
Interpretation,” Journal of Quality Technology, 27(2), 99-109.
Mason, R. L., Tracy, N. D. and Young, J.C. (1997), “A Practical Approach for Interpreting Multivariate T2 Control
Chart Signals”.    Journal of Quality Technology, 29(4), 396-406.
Medsker, L and Liebowitz, J. (1994) Design and development of Expert systems and neural networks, New York.
Murphy, B. J. (1987) “Selecting out of control variables with the T2 multivariate quality control procedure”. The
Statistician, 36, 571–583


                                                           60
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                            www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



Niaki, S.T.A and Abbasi, B. (2005) “Fault diagnosis in multivariate control chart using artificial neural networks”.
Quality Reliability Engineering International 21, 825–840
Pignatiello J.J and Runger G.C. (1990) “Comparisons of multivariate CUSUM charts”          Journal of Quality
Technology 22, 173-186
Rumelnhart, D. E., Hinton, D. E., and Williams, R. J. (1986), “Learning Internal Representations by Error
Propagation in Parallel Distributed Process” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 318-362.
Sagiroglu, S.,     Besdok, E. and Erler, M (2000) “Control chart Pattern Recognition Using Artificial Neural
Networks”. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering. 8(2), 137-147.
Schalkoff, R.J. (1997). Artificial Neural Networks. McGraw-Hill: New York
Woodall W.H. and Ncube M.M (1985) “Multivariate CUSUM quality control procedures”. Technometrics 27,
285-292




       Figure 1 A MATLAB output of ANN training with dataset allocation into training, validation and testing




                                                          61
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                                                    www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012




                               95
    Recognition Accuracy (%)


                               90

                               85
                                                                                                              Dataset 1
                               80
                                                                                                              Dataset 2
                               75                                                                             Dataset 3
                               70                                                                             Dataset 4

                               65
                                      Trainlm   Trainrp     Trainscg Trainbfg Traingdm Traingd
                                                           Training Algorithms


Figure 2 Performance of ANN for different percentages of dataset allocation into training, validation and testing
where dataset 1is 50% (Training), 25% (Validation) and 25% (Testing), dataset 2 is 60% (Training), 20% (Validation)
and 20% (Testing), dataset 3 is 70% (Training), 15% (Validation) and 15% (Testing) and dataset 4 is 80% (Training),
10% (Validation) and 10% (Testing)


Table 1
                               Recognition Accuracy of trained ANN on percentages Dataset Allocation with six different algorithms
 Training Algorithms                                                        Percentages of Dataset Allocations
                                                50%        (Training),   60%      (Training),   70%     (Training),   80%     (Training),
                                                25%       (Validation)   20%     (Validation)   15%   (Validation)    10%   (Validation)
                                                and 25% (Testing)        and 20% (Testing)      and 15% (Testing)     and 10% (Testing)
Levenberg-Marquardt
                           (Trainlm)                      85.5                   87.8                  88.2                  90.5
                               Resilient
  Backpropagation                                         86.5                   86.8                  87.2                  86.3
                               (Trainrp)
  Scaled Conjugate
                               Gradient                   86.5                   86.1                  85.6                  85.7
                       (Trainscg)
    Quasi-Newton
                       (Trainbfg)                         89.2                   89.9                  90.5                  87.1
  Gradient Descent
   with Momentum                                          85.2                   83.1                  83.4                  84.2
                  (Traingdm)
  Gradient Descent
                           (Traingd)                      86.6                   77.5                  76.4                  77.3



                                                                                   62
Mathematical Theory and Modeling                                                                               www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper)    ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
Vol.2, No.10, 2012



Table 2
Mean square error performance of ANN model on percentages Dataset Allocation with six different algorithms
 Training Algorithms                                   Percentages of Dataset Allocations
                           50%       (Training),    60%      (Training),   70%      (Training),   80%      (Training),
                           25%     (Validation)     20%     (Validation)   15%     (Validation)   10%     (Validation)
                           and 25% (Testing)        and 20% (Testing)      and 15% (Testing)      and 10% (Testing)
Levenberg-Marquardt
       (Trainlm)             1.04036 x 10-13          1.53983 x 10-9          4.316 x 10-14         4.71267 x 10-27
       Resilient
  Backpropagation             5.84036 x 10-9          8.76111 x 10-9         1.36228 x 10-8         1.90931 x 10-10
       (Trainrp)
  Scaled Conjugate
       Gradient              3.20737 x 10-11          1.84296 x 10-7         1.83487 x 10-8         2.20146 x 10-7
      (Trainscg)
    Quasi-Newton
      (Trainbfg)              1.78209 x 10-8          2.66866 x 10-8         1.29354 x 10-9         4.28321 x 10-8
  Gradient Descent
   with Momentum                 0.0103566             0.00788974                0.0343137              0.0241588
      (Traingdm)
  Gradient Descent
       (Traingd)                 0.0316514                0.113465               0.0418345           0.00982071




                                                              63
This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,
Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access
Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is
Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage:
http://www.iiste.org


                               CALL FOR PAPERS

The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and
collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for
submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission
instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/Journals/

The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified
submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the
readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than
those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the
journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open
Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:11/6/2012
language:English
pages:12
iiste321 iiste321 http://
About